Third Debate: It's All About the Children

As with back-seat driving or Monday morning quarterbacking, there is a grand tradition in politics to second guess the primary actors and prognosticate on what they should have and should do. I am not immune to such pronouncement, as my significant other vociferously complains of when they are driving. So in preparation of the third Presidential debate on Wednesday, this is what I think Clinton should do: focus on children. It should be all about children.

We got a preview of this focus during the second debate when Clinton was very clear about her commitment to and the years she has spent in public service as a lawyer, First Lady (FLOTUS), and a Senator. This was smart because it clearly demonstrated two things, 1) her experience in public service and public policy-making in contradistinction to Trump's lack thereof, and 2) highlights a particular brand of femininity, matronly maternalism. This second demonstration itself serves two purposes, 1) it points to a form of accepted femininity which can silence the accusations that she is actually a “man-woman,” an obvious charge because she is seeking a male defined office, and 2) it speaks to a strong and robust rather than vulnerable form of femininity. It speaks to the strength and “stamina” of the she-wolf protecting her cubs. This is where the term “bitch” becomes acceptable because protecting the young is a female thing to do and it requires strength and stamina.

I have in other places written about my ambivalence about the use of childhood or family issue frames as stand-ins for women issue-frames in electoral politics. However, in this case it is effective because it presents a softer and more readily accepted critique of Trump’s misogyny. This is because age is one of the factors in the intersection of power and privilege that Trump deploys in his statements regarding women and women’s worth both in terms of their appearance and stamina. In focussing on children, Clinton evokes the need to protect young women from the predatory creepiness of the entitled white male bully. It calls out the straying man-boy who lacks the experience to know his interest in pretty young things breaks some of the most strongly held taboos around pedophilia and, given Trump’s earlier statements, incest. It certainly speaks to family values, of course heteronormative and patriarchal values and norms, but this is the electoral politics of populism.

It also links Clinton directly to the speech given by Michelle Obama last week that certainly seems to have hit a popular nerve. It puts a spotlight on what has sometimes been characterized as the wild ‘playful’ carnival of hucksterism of Trump, and asks, “is this behaviour we accept from our children?” The answer is clearly no. This behaviour is not acceptable for school children and therefore should not be allowed in the adult public sphere, no matter how conflictually that sphere has been designed. All children know that the fun of “professional wrestling” is that it is taboo to emulate such behaviour outside the entertainment venue or the basement rec-room.

So it certainly makes sense for Clinton to focus on children in the next debate. And at the end of the debate she should ask Americans to answer a very simple question: Is this a man you would leave your tween or teenage daughter, niece, sister, cousin or neighbour with? While there is a need to break the reification of the Presidency as a male-office, this does not mean that there is a need to break the reification of the Presidency as an adult-office.  
(Pictures from:
"No you are incorrect," Some ecards, http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi00ZDQyYjFjYTEyNDEyYjE5
Justine Silver vs. Barbi Hayden. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BoX9WnItcU -- which bears an uncanny resemblance to myself and my younger sister Benney in our rec-room back in middle school. )